Hello All,

I'm trying loads in some Fiocchi 44 Russian brass I acquired recently and I have two questions. First, with a case capacity similiar to 45 ACP in H2O volume can I safely use the same loading data? (For those of you who are worrying, no this will by no means be used in a topbreak revolver.) Second, the Special case seems very large to me, so while I am interested in hotter loads I also wondered about the powderpuff topbreak style loads in smokeless. The quieter the better as I reside in a non rural area, maybe 5744 for 650 FPS? I've seen the antique multiball loads, anyone replicate those and care to share?

Regards, Jesse

__________________
"Suum Cuique"

Before you go extrapolating and load data based on the water capacity of the 45acp case to the 44 russian case I would ask you first to get a reloading manual and read what that particular manual suggests for the 44 russian case. While I have no idea of your reloading experience and am not trying to insult you, you would be better served in looking up the data in a reloading manual. Stay Safe. Frank

The reloading data for the medium power loads I want is not published, and I know enough about pressure to know better than to use 44 Special data as the larger case reduces pressure. In any event if anyone has any data they'd like to share please do, and if you wish to do so in PM that will be fine. I kinda figured that people would be very nervous about making the recommendations, however let me say that from my research both Fiocchi and Starline make 44 Russian brass to the same specs as the Special and the Magnum just shorter. So case head and web strength aren't a concern for me. In any event I do appreciate the warnings, but again I'm seeking the wisdom of others here about loading data only.

Regards, Jesse

__________________
"Suum Cuique"

I have 2 different Hodgdon loading publications, and they keep pressure under 12,000 CUP. This is because of the pistols the round was loaded for. Universal, HP38 (WW231),Trail Boss, Tightgroup,and Clays are the powders listed for 200 (top velocity 970 fps) and 240 (top velocity 840 fps) grain Bullets. This info is also on Hodgdon .com. Sizing dies; 44 mag or special dies will work fine, seating can be a problem getting a crimp on brass that short (my Lee dies are specific for Russian). I have some of the Fioochi ammo but I reload brass from Starline.
S&W came out with the 44 Special to use the bulky smokeless powders of the day to get the same velocities that Black Powder did in 44 Russian. The pressures in Special are up to 14,000 Cup but the bullet velocities are not much faster than Russian loads. Forget trying to come up with any Elmer Kieth type loads. Ivan

Ivan,

I'm looking 1000FPS with a ~250 Gr cast, I think that's far enough below Elmer's 1200 FPS standard to be safely acheivable but I guess I'll have to just kind of figure out my own load data.

Regards, Jesse

__________________
"Suum Cuique"

I recommend you reread my post, then go stand in the corner for a 5 minute time out!

Ivan,

Again I appreciate the concern, but all I want to achieve is a nice warm load in a short case. I don't think 1000FPS is unreasonable given the capacity of the case and the ability to seat the bullet further out given the revolver's lack of issue with variances in OAL. The other benefit of the data I'm seeking/developing is that in short barrel revolvers the Russian will eject better given the reduced stroke of the rod.

Regards, Jesse

__________________
"Suum Cuique"

Shorter case equals less case capacity, smaller case capacity equals higher pressures. If you will not use published data tread lightly.

__________________
Stay safe people!

Bob,

I understand the increased pressure part, that's why I know better than to us 44 Spl. data. The 45 ACP has similar capacity (actually slightly less) that's why I feel that data might make a good reference point. I appreciate the responses I've gotten thusfar and as I said, if anyone would like to share data via PM please do.

Regards, Jesse

__________________
"Suum Cuique"

I reload .44 Spl, .44 Colt, and .44 Russian and shoot them all in my .44 Mag. I found reload info online.

a) The 45 ACP operates at much higher pressure than the 44 Special or Russian.
45 ACP 20KPSI
44 Special 15KPSI
44 Russian 12 KPSI
b) Briefly looking at the 230 grain max loadings for the 45 ACP I see none going 1000 fps (980 is max).
c) max loading (brief search) for the 44 Russ gives a 240 going 840 fps.
There is really nothing that extra 160 fps is going to get you except more wear and tear on the gun and your wrist.
I consider 800 fps plenty out of my modern 44 Specials.

The Lee Manual and Hodgdon website are a couple that list pressure as well as load data.
Because of the smaller case the Russian will achieve reasonable velocities with about a grain to 1.5 less powder than the Special.
Notice I don't repeat any recipes. Please get them out of manuals or official websites.

===
Nemo

Well for one, the 45 ACP with the 230 GR at 980 is nice but the load I'm looking to match is a +P load with a 255 GR 45 Colt bullet. My cast bullet drops from the mould at around 255 GR with wheelweight alloy. 1000 FPS promises in excess of 500 ft lbs of muzzle energy, don't know about you but that is a very nice number if acheivable safely. Thank you for your comments, I shall continue my experimentation.

Regards, Jesse

__________________
"Suum Cuique"

The fastest 240 gr lead load I could find was about 850 fps. Most were around 700 fps.

What revolver are you using?

No offense but what exactly are you looking for? In the original post you mention 650 fps and it now looks like you want 1000 fps. 650 would be in the 44 Russian range. 1000 fps with a 240 grain is in-between 44 special and 44 magnum.
I'm sure it's possible to reach 1000 fps using a 44 Russian case, however you will be way beyond Russian and Special pressure levels.

I'm using an S&W M624.

I found the quiet load data I was seeking already except the double round ball. So now I'm just looking for thoughts/data on achieving my other goal of a warm load. Thanks for the replies.

Regards, Jesse

__________________
"Suum Cuique"

Jesseatamez, I don't know if this will be of interest you or not, but I load for the 44 Russian and use the ammo in an old German Model 1883 Reichsrevolver. I also use this ammo occasionally in my Smith & Wesson M624 with 4" barrel, and my M24 with 3" barrel. I load a 154 grain wadcutter bullet cast from an NOE mold and use 2.5 grains of Trail Boss powder. The recoil is almost nothing, and the report is relatively low.

I use a set of 44 Special dies (when I started loading for this caliber 44 Russian dies were not available). The only problem I had was that the crimping die would not adjust far enough to crimp. I solved this by trimming off about 1/4" on a chop saw with an abrasive cut-off wheel. It worked fine after that.

I get the following velocities:
M1883 (4-5/8" bbl) 612 fps
M 624 (4" bbl) 578 fps
M 24 (3" bbl) 545 fps

Your idea of making +P 44 Russian ammo for short barreled revolvers has merit. I mark the primers with a red "Sharpie" on my high pressure loads. I have not tried loading +P with the 44 Russian. Yet...

Attached Images

	100_2612.JPG (108.8 KB, 37 views)
	100_2608.JPG (119.4 KB, 25 views)
	100_2621.JPG (54.9 KB, 35 views)
	100_1513.JPG (130.2 KB, 24 views)
	100_2624.JPG (109.8 KB, 24 views)

Warren,

I really like your wadcutter. As for the Reichsrevolver, I love the looks of them, and I know there were even double action models made for officers. I guess I've always just been afraid of blowing one up, I've seen a few at gun shows and I knew the Russian is the imperial equivalent of that calibre. At those velocities do you check your barrel each time for obstructions?

I appreciate the positive comment, first ones I've heard. As for the Russian case, in my mind the shorter case is a benefit, more efficient powder usage for mild to medium loads. While it won't do the same things the magnum or special will, I feel it's biggest advantage lies in ballistic efficiency and as an aid to short barrel revolver ejection.

Regards, Jesse

__________________
"Suum Cuique"

Jesseatamez, no, I do not check for stuck bullets at those velocities. I even shoot those super light loads in my Thompson Contender with 14" barrel (576 fps, by the way).

I only use cast lead bullets for reduced loads so no jacket will ever separate and get left in the barrel. Plus, they are cheap to shoot!

In my copy of the book "Handloading", published by the NRA in 1986, there is a very informative article written by William Dresser titled "Minimum Loads In Handguns". The article goes into great detail how he carefully worked DOWN until he got a stuck bullet, then added enough powder for a reliable load that always exited the bore. That load was 0.75 grains of Bullseye, 146 grain full wadcutter, in a .38 Special revolver with 2" barrel. Velocity was 195 fps.

My copy is from 1981, about the time I started handloading.
I am now going to have to re-read that one and the related articles.
If you are Mr. D. my hat's off to you.
I have enjoyed your missives for a long time, especially the internal ballistics which fascinate me.

BTW I didn't mean anything negative towards the OP.
I was just trying to help with not blowing up that cool revolver which I had never seen before.
Enjoy!

==
Nemo

Ok , I'm finally getting the picture ( I think) .

You have a 4in M624 , want to more or less duplicate a warm .44Spl handload , and just happen to do so with .44Russiam brass. As I understand you own no actual .44Russian guns. Presumably you realized that if any of your desired loads were to be fired from an actual .44Rusian , a KaBoom would be likely.

In the days of old , when Elmer Keith was bold , he wrote up some *ineresting* loads using 240gr SWC of his design, in .45AR . Fired in M1917 revolvers as hunting and LE duty loads. M1917 had thinner chambers ( and no heat treat ) compared to a M624 .


Soooooo , start way low with Unique, work up to about 7gr .If your chrono isn't showing very close to your goal at 7.0gr , then switch to slow powder of your preference ( 2400, 4227, AA9 , several new powders , etc) .

To clarify; no, I am not Mr Dresser, the author of that article. I should have written, "my copy of the book", instead of, "my book". I apologize for the confusion.

I will edit my post.

PS I think Mr Dresser has been deceased for quite some time.

I was actually referring to Mr. W.C. Davis who edited and wrote most of the articles for that tome.
Sorry for the confusion.
We are certainly glad YOU are still here.

===
Nemo

Likewise!!!!

I thought I made a mistake, but I was wrong!